Presentation on theme: "Quest for a Kingdom of Amber in Language Quality Universe Serge Gladkoff President, Logrus International"— Presentation transcript:
Quest for a Kingdom of Amber in Language Quality Universe Serge Gladkoff President, Logrus International
Lack of language QA standard DIN 2345 ISO-9000 series EN ASTM standard..are all business process standards, not language or translation quality standards. There are no generally accepted objective criteria for evaluating the quality of translations. Even the latest national and international standards in this area do not define evaluation of translation quality. The result is assessment chaos.
Industry problems Varying quality metrics make translation BP vulnerable, expensive, complex (different perceptions and interpretations = high process friction (delays, miscommunication, misunderstanding, project overhaul, disconnect between consumers, clients, vendors and LPs). Lack of LQ standard degrades LPs labor value, lowers entry barrier to unacceptably low quality, causes noise. Lack of LQ standard prevents from distinguishing between different language services and service levels, is an obstacle to substantiated and relevant company certification. Inability to compare apples vs oranges makes project costing difficult -> inhibits outsourcing. Lack of LQ standard prevents BPO development (e.g. on-demand standardized QA service). Lack of LQ standard slows down adoption of language technology and inhibits productivity increase.
Client problems Want more content translated for less $$$ Want lower vendor management costs Want lower external provider management cost Don’t want to bother with linguistic research – need developed LQ metrics Want access to clearly defined, measurable and transparent linguistic services Don’t want to spend money on building high internal fixed cost of language services
Vendor problems Price pressure from lower quality suppliers. Time and $ cost to do linguistic research, develop internal standard and invent a unique process that would sustain it. Difficulty and cost of handling different quality metrics for different customers. Difficulty to prove that particular deliverable is of good quality. Difficulty and cost to be on the same page with client on quality issues. Difficulty to plug into client BP. Difficulty to protect reputation -> retain client relationship. Incompatibility with peers.
The good and evil of Subjectivity There is an infinite number of perfect translations. Usable translation can be less than perfect in all senses. Every client has his own “Quality Shadow” – entire world of language quality approaches and requirements. Client quality requirements are not always well defined (“shadows”, indeed).
Can we find common approach to language quality at all? Is LQ subjective? YES NO Is LQ defined by a client? YES NO Do we need LQ standard at all? YES NO Do clients need LQ standard? YES NO Do vendors need LQ standard? YES NO Is it possible to develop LQS? YES NO NO single standard? Is it possible to develop a single approach to LQS yet? Is there the Kingdom of Amber?
Quality is difficult to measure We cannot define one language standard Machine fails to measure quality We still need industry standard language QA practice
Benefits of having standard language quality approach Less frustration for clients and vendors Better defined language processes More business for vendors Less costly translations for clients At least 17 other benefits have been listed in 5 minutes – they would not fit on this screen. (Provided on request. )
There MUST be ONE way «There is only one real world, called Amber. It casts many shadows.» Roger Zhelyazny, «Crohicles of Amber»